I tend to agree with Nathan here. I don't know the history of the event
described, so I'm not sure whether or not it would be fair to bring up even
if it had been Natalia. But certainly, publicly identifying the incorrect
person in an accusation is no small thing.
Gnangarra, you have given yourself an opportunity to show the rest of us
what it looks like to take responsibility for doing something wrong. I
think we are all interested to see what path you take.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:08 PM Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering the context, Gnangarra, I think you owe something a little more
> substantial. In the midst of tearing Nat down for misdeeds which you
> yourself acknowledge she didn't personally commit (that of Board
> miscommunication), and considering your opposition is based on Board
> directives that she did not write, you slandered her with an accusation
> that is both incorrectly applied to her and false in any case.
>
> As you said, "Taking responsibility for a gross failure does in fact mean
> accepting and acknowledging you failed, and then stating what you intend to
> do to rectify that failing." I await your demonstration of this principle
> which is clearly so critically important to you. Nataliia is a human being
> and a volunteer, as are we all, and we should all be better than to toss
> off gross insults against colleagues on no basis whatsoever.
>
> On the topic, I think others have said it very well - the core problem is
> that this rebranding approach is backward. It should have begun with
> community conversations, with a "grass roots" effort to develop a common
> understanding of the problem. Instead the Board decided, paid some people a
> lot of money to present a narrow range of options, and planned the
> community consultation as a last and limited step. These are serious errors
> with significant consequences, as we see.
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My apologies for that error
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
described, so I'm not sure whether or not it would be fair to bring up even
if it had been Natalia. But certainly, publicly identifying the incorrect
person in an accusation is no small thing.
Gnangarra, you have given yourself an opportunity to show the rest of us
what it looks like to take responsibility for doing something wrong. I
think we are all interested to see what path you take.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:08 PM Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering the context, Gnangarra, I think you owe something a little more
> substantial. In the midst of tearing Nat down for misdeeds which you
> yourself acknowledge she didn't personally commit (that of Board
> miscommunication), and considering your opposition is based on Board
> directives that she did not write, you slandered her with an accusation
> that is both incorrectly applied to her and false in any case.
>
> As you said, "Taking responsibility for a gross failure does in fact mean
> accepting and acknowledging you failed, and then stating what you intend to
> do to rectify that failing." I await your demonstration of this principle
> which is clearly so critically important to you. Nataliia is a human being
> and a volunteer, as are we all, and we should all be better than to toss
> off gross insults against colleagues on no basis whatsoever.
>
> On the topic, I think others have said it very well - the core problem is
> that this rebranding approach is backward. It should have begun with
> community conversations, with a "grass roots" effort to develop a common
> understanding of the problem. Instead the Board decided, paid some people a
> lot of money to present a narrow range of options, and planned the
> community consultation as a last and limited step. These are serious errors
> with significant consequences, as we see.
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My apologies for that error
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>